Retrieve a Ticketmaster event by ID to return normalized venue, attraction, timing, availability, and classification details.
Get a Ticketmaster event. Returns normalized details for one Ticketmaster event, including its venue, attractions, timing, availability flags, and classification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Ticketmaster event id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'Get' implying a read-only operation and lists the content categories returned (venue, attractions, timing, availability flags, classification). However, it does not describe error behavior, authentication needs, or what 'normalized' entails, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is remarkably concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the action ('Get a Ticketmaster event') and immediately adds valuable detail about the return contents. There is no redundant information or wordy filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (a single parameter and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the expected return content. However, it could be improved by adding guidance on how to fetch an event ID and what happens for nonexistent events, but these are not critical gaps for a straightforward fetch operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the only parameter 'id' with the description 'Ticketmaster event id', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context about this parameter, such as how to obtain a valid ID or any format constraints. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a single Ticketmaster event with normalized details. It specifies the resource (Ticketmaster event) and the scope (one event), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ticketmaster_search_events. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or mention the 'by ID' mechanism, which would strengthen differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ticketmaster_search_events or ticketmaster_suggest. The description implies it is for fetching details of a known event, but it does not state prerequisites (e.g., having an event ID) or exclusions (e.g., do not use for searching). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.